Ecuador 'won't be bullied on Assange extradition'

reply to post by Xcathdra


Diplomatic immunity wouldn't protect him. Save-conduct would but Uk would have to agree to it. Also his situation is nothing but political persecution so it most definately fits the description for an asylum request.

Originally posted by petrus4
While I think that it is admirable that you are willing to uphold the right of these individuals to free speech, I also think that an important distinction needs to .... snipped for room.

The actions of law enforcement during an investigation are to rule people out as suspects as much as it is to find the suspect. The people to date in the US who have made those comments have no ability to order any US agency to engage in an action that would involve the death of Assange. Going from a private citizen viewpoint its entirely possible to do the age old murder for hire however that action would be pointless. The information is out in cyberland and whether or not Assange is alive or dead, the information is still out there. Going after Assanges life would do nothing but galvanize his supporters while at the same time taking those of us who think Assange should be charged down the road of questioning that position.

So yes if a person makes statements against another person, and that person ends up dead, the people who made the comment will be investigated. Words alone though have to be taken in the correct context though.

Originally posted by petrus4
At the very least, every individual who has made such a statement, would be considered guilty within numerous countries, of a grievous act of assault. I am a little unclear on the law in American jurisdictions on this point, admittedly; but where I'm from, verbally threatening an individual's life is generally considered a serious crime.

Under US law, in general, simply stating a person should be killed is not in and of itself is a crime. US laws have whats called elements of a crime. Those elements have to be met in order to satisfy the requirement of breaking that law. That then has to be weighed against our 1st amendment (there are exceptions, like yelling fire in a crowded theatre..

Example -
In the US a person could go to the mall with a gun and shoot and kill 5 people in front of hundreds of witnesses. With the actions of the person on camera, coupled with all the witnesses, the person who shot the people is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The burden to make that case falls to the prosecuting attorney. The way our legal system is set up is geared to the extent that the system would rather see 9 guilty individuals walk rather than have one innocent person go to jail.

In the case of Assange, should the US file charges, it will be done at the Federal level since it crosses national borders.

Originally posted by petrus4
As an example, I consider former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, to not only have made the statement that Assange is guilty of treason, (despite the fact that he is not an ...snipped for room

As far as American politicions go they speak at times before they think or have all the facts (like the treason comment). Huckabee is no longer a govorner and the laws in question would fall under the Federal Government and not the laws of the state of Arkansas. While I agree he could make an attempt, we could make that claim to just about any person on this planet. This again falls back to the 1at amendment argument and elements of a crime. There needs to be intent, or actions that go beyond just the opinion that assange should face the death penalty / be assasinated.

Originally posted by petrus4
If Assange dies, therefore, it would be my hope that the relevant authorities would view both Mr Huckabee and possibly Ms Palin, as at least suspects for the order of Assange's execution, if not the literal, physical commission of the act.

If Assange ends up dead somewhere the country / jurisdiction he is in will be primary for investigation. If the investigation starts to come back to a US citizen the lead agency can come to the US to interview those individuals. The US is a member of interpol and has close relationships with law enforcement in other countries. Like Assange an extradition request can be made and we go from there.

Depending on the country and circumstances its possible for say huckabee to be charged under US law. We have laws that allow the prosecution of an individual based on conspiracy (engaging in an action with other parties that results in death).

Originally posted by petrus4
I didn't mean to accuse you of having sinister intentions as s...snipped for room

Fair enough and looking back im guilty of doing that as well so my bad.

I do my best not to drag issues from one thread into another. I have found that there are people on this site who I argue bitterly with on one topic and in the next we are in the same boat and agree. Its difficult at times to get the context / tone of an individual simply because its text and not verbal.

As I have told others if I say something that is coming across wrong / or needs clarification shoot me a U2U. I have no issues clarifying / changing my post to correct it. I prefer that method than just assuming the intent of the post is an attack resulting in derailing the topic and flow of conversation.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Diplomatic immunity wouldn't protect him. Save-conduct would but Uk would have to agree to it. Also his situation is nothing but political persecution so it most definately fits the description for an asylum request.

I know we dont see eye to eye on this however we must be careful with the political persecution charge. I say this because Assange has not had charges filed against him in the US. His extradition request came from Sweden due to sex crime charges. The UK judge stated Assange could get a fair trial in Sweden coupled with the ability to appeal decisions.

The reason that is important is because the political persectuion charge is being based on a hypothesis / actions that have not even occured.

His legal team as well as Assange, and we see this in the wikileaks threads, make their argument for non extradition because of the US instead of the actual issue - Sweden and their laws.

Its not enough to say he is being persecuted politically. Its going to require evidence that supports that claim in order for him to qualify. There will need to be verified evidence of collusion between the US and Sweden on the sole topic of Assange.

For one, he hasn't been charged in Sweden. That's the whole point. He is politically persecuted because he is wanted detained and incommunicato in Sweden even though there is no reason for doing that. It's persecution from sweden regardless if US wants him or not.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
For one, he hasn't been charged in Sweden. That's the whole point. He is politically persecuted because he is wanted detained and incommunicato in Sweden even though there is no reason for doing that. It's persecution from sweden regardless if US wants him or not.

Thats my point.. Assange is basing his asylum argument on being sent to the US from Sweden. The US has nothing to do with his Swedish legal issues. The UK judge found the extradition request valid from Sweden so im not sure where the persecution part is coming in on that one.

Regardless if we agree with Swedish laws, they are Swedish laws and Assange was supposedly present on Swedish soil when the incidents occured. From what I have seen Sweden is the same as most western nations where a person is innocent until proven guilty as well as the prosecution being required to meet their burden of proof (if someone has more intimate knowledge on the Swedish legal system let me know).

What is Assanges argument for fighting extradition to Sweden?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
the information is still out there. Going after Assanges life would do nothing but galvanize his supporters while at the same time taking those of us who think Assange should be charged down the road of questioning that position.

Thank you for this explanation, Xcathdra.

I don't know whether you are implying here that you are among the people who think that Assange should be charged, but depending on what the named charge is, specifically, I wouldn't be entirely opposed to the idea myself, primarily from the point of view of finding out whether or not the information he released, genuinely did endanger anyone's lives.

I will say that I feel that Assange resembles, in a number of respects, the archetype that is known on the Internet as a "grey hat hacker." I don't know whether you are familiar with said archetype, but one of its' main elements is arrogance. Adherents of said archetype have a tendency to overestimate not only their own abilities, but what they can/should be allowed to get away with.

I do not want to see Assange killed, and that is my primary concern; but at the same time, if Assange genuinely is guilty of having broken the law, then obviously that needs to be dealt with. He would, however, need to be kept under extremely tight security, and very closely watched, if he were taken into custody; and the people watching him screened themselves, in order to ensure that they would not make an attempt on his life.

I think I need to be more level headed, in hindsight, concerning Bradley Manning, as well. I will admit that my attitude towards the American government, is not sympathetic. I have observed that in domestic terms, a large number of people seem to be suffering greatly under its' excesses at the moment, and it has also taken steps in the last few years which have seriously brought into question the independent sovereignty of my country of residence, Australia, as well. We have not been invaded directly or in name, no; but there are other ways.

However, I begin to realise that if action is to be taken against potentially rogue elements within the government, then it needs to be done via the legal system itself. While I agree that Assange and Manning are to be given due process, I am beginning to acknowledge that perhaps, in their own attempts to do something about a potentially tyrannical government, they have not attempted to utilise said due process themselves.

Let these men be charged, if they are guilty of crimes; but let them be given due process. Not tortured, and not merely lynched or assassinated. Apart from anything else, the main reason why due process could be so important in their case, is because it may go towards convincing them that the system does still work.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Assange could get into a a diplomatic vehicle and could be taken to the airport however there is nothing at the airport that would prevent the police from arresting assange. The moment he stepped out of the vehicle he can be taken into custody.

Could the vehicle drive right onto a cargo plane...?

Originally posted by petrus4
Thank you for this explanation, Xcathdra.

You are welcome..

Originally posted by petrus4
I don't know whether you are implying here that you are among the people who think that Assange should be charged, but depending on what the named charge is, ...snipped for room.

I support whistle blowers provided they take the proper path. The video Manning released via wikileaks of the helicopter incident, in my opinion, was valid. Everything after that is where I have issues. Its one thing to release information that exposes criminal wrongdoing. Its something else entirely when information that does not constitute a criminal offense is released (diplomatic cables / logistic issues in Iraq / Afghanistan etc).

I do think Assange should be charged and be held accountible. Some of the possible charges -
* - Receiving / disseminating classifed information.
* - Espionage (I think this one is a stretch but its been discussed).
* - Conspiracy
just to name a few.

Originally posted by petrus4
I will say that I feel that Assange resembles, in a number of respects, the archetype that is known on the Internet as a "grey hat hacker." I don't know whether ..snipped for room...

His attitude and self importance reminds me of the book animal farm, with assange being one of the pigs (if you are not familiar with the book let me know and I will give more info). The farm animals created a constitution of sorts that governed behavior of all animals. One of the laws was all animals are creadted equal.

By the last 1/3 of the book the pigs changed the constitution by adding - All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others. I think Assange feels all government / big business owners / high profile people are fair game however when it comes to himself the mindset he has is hands off.

Originally posted by petrus4
I do not want to see Assange killed, and that is my primary concern; ..snipped for room.

Speaking for the US side if a person is arrested / sent to jail / prison the well being of that person becomes the responsibility of the officer or the corrections staff.

Originally posted by petrus4
I think I need to be more level headed, in hindsight, concerning Bradley Manning, as well. I will admit that my attitude towards the American government, is not sympathetic. I have ....snipped for room

I find that people who are not all that familiar with the US tend to attach issues to the FEderal government. We have 50 states that are a separate sovereign from the US government. Their roles are defined when it comes to military, law enforcement, foreign relations etc. A lot of internal domestic issues are a byproduct of the federal government and at times become compounded by the state governments actions. As an example I have people on this site accuse me of being a shill for the US government. The problem with that logic is I dont work for the federal government - I work for a municipal government. They dont seem to understand their is a difference.

Understanding those issues would actually help people understand why the US does some of the things it does. US citizens carry whats essentialy dual citizenship. I am a citizen of the state I reside in and if I travel out of the country I am a citizen of the United States.

Originally posted by petrus4
However, I begin to realise that if action is to be taken against potentially rogue elements within the government, then it needs to be done via the legal system itself. While I agree that Assange and Manning are to be given due process, I am beginning to acknowledge that perhaps, in their own attempts to do something about a potentially tyrannical government, they have not attempted to utilise said due process themselves.

I agree with everything you just said here. The system works as hard or as little as the person accused decides.

Originally posted by petrus4
Let these men be charged, if they are guilty of crimes; but let them be given due process. Not tortured, and not merely lynched or assassinated. Apart from anything else, the main reason why due process could be so important in their case, is because it may go towards convincing them that the system does still work.

Bradley Manning has been charged and is going through his process as we speak. However what manning is charged with cannot be applied to Assange.

Our legal system is, in general, 3 different groups.
* - State and local laws.
* - Federal laws
* - Uniform code of military justice.

Assange, since hes not US military, is subject to US Federal law (should they decide to charge him). Manning, since he is military, is charged under their system. While the charges / crimes / elements of a crime are different in each category, they all retain due process, including facing your accuser, seeing and challenging the evidence against you all the way up to the appeals process to the US Supreme Court (end of the line for all 3 levels of justice).

This is one of the main reasons I have issues with Assange outside of the leaks. The argument being made by his legal team / himself is based on fallacies and is designed to play on emotions rather than the law. Assange cannot be sent to Gitmo.. He cannot be charged / prosecuted by the military. Any charges made dont have the death penalty as an outcome. At one point they tried to argue Assange would be sent to the US under the rendition programs (ended when Obama came to office).

None of the excuses above has anything to do with the issues in Sweden, yet they are trying to make sweden and the US into one big problem.

If Assange has evidence the 2 ladies who are accusing him are making false claims, then I dont see why Assange would not want his day in court. Any legal scenario involving Assange is covered by the media.. Do we really think media would ignore a story that had assange killed / secreted off to the US?

Thats my issue with Assange..

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Assange could get into a a diplomatic vehicle and could be taken to the airport however there is nothing at the airport that would prevent the police from arresting assange. The moment he stepped out of the vehicle he can be taken into custody.

Could the vehicle drive right onto a cargo plane...?

Good question... I am going to go with it could but I dont think it would prevent officers from boarding the aircraft and arresting him the moment he steps out of the car.

Worst case scenario would be the refusal to allow the plane to land or to take off, which has occured before. Depending on the situation its entirely possible for say the UK to sever diplomatic relations with Ecuador over the action.

I am not familiar with European law when it comes to bounty hunters. In the US the federal courts have presided over cases where a person was clandestinly removed from one country to face charges in the US. The courts have generally stated its not their place to be concerned with actinos that occured outside the US on foreign soil.

Keep in mind this is not the same as rendition / CIA programs. When dog the bounty hunter went after Andrew Luster, they were able to catch him and bring him back to the US to face charges / trial. The laws of MExico were broke by the bounty hunter, which is the responsibility of the MExican judicial system and not the US system.

IF assange is granted asylum its entirely possible for bounty hunters to snag him and bring him to the US to face charges (while the bounty hunters can face charges in Ecquador). The difference being Assange would be charged under FEderal Law, would recevie due process, would be held in civilian facilities, have access to legal counsel, consular access, etc etc etc.

Im not saying this will occur but thought I would point that out anyways.

ETA - Bounty Hunters in the US are NOT law enforcement so they have greater abilities than what law enforcement does.

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Assange could get into a a diplomatic vehicle and could be taken to the airport however there is nothing at the airport that would prevent the police from arresting assange. The moment he stepped out of the vehicle he can be taken into custody.

Could the vehicle drive right onto a cargo plane...?

Assange's problems would start before he could ever get into a diplomatic car. The London Ecuadorian embassy is a first floor flat. He must exit the embassy before he even exits the building.

reply to post by Xcathdra

I do think Assange should be charged and be held accountible. Some of the possible charges - * - Receiving / disseminating classifed information.

Why do you think he should be charged with this. Is it not the realm of the government to keep their information classified. Once it is in the public arena you are allowed to publish it.. There are many examples of newspapers printing classified information in the past and many newspapers that printed WL material too. Should they be prosecuted also... Should sits like ATS be prosecuted. They have published classifed information.. What has happened to freedom of speech..?

More to the point. This may well be a crime in the US. But the the information was not published in the US it was published in Sweden where this is not a crime...

Really I think its a smoke screen going after JA... Would it not be better to go after some of the criminals he has exposed.....

Sometimes I dont get you.. No offence meant. Evidently you are intelligent and you know your stuff. You defend the Fourth Estate with hammer and tong.. Do you really think the way we are doing things is ok. Do you not think they can be done better. Would things not be better if our governments stopped lying so much. Do you really want the next century to be like the last...

reply to post by Alfie1

Assange's problems would start before he could ever get into a diplomatic car. The London Ecuadorian embassy is a first floor flat. He must exit the embassy before he even exits the building.

Maybe they could use a diplomatic cherry picker that picks him up from the window and off it goes.. I dont know really but where there is a will there is a way..

reply to post by petrus4

Let these men be charged, if they are guilty of crimes; but let them be given due process. Not tortured, and not merely lynched or assassinated. Apart from anything else, the main reason why due process could be so important in their case, is because it may go towards convincing them that the system does still work.

I agree with your sentiment. I do not think he would get a far trial. I would like to live in a world where everyone is entitled to a far trial and the due course of law. We seem to moving further away from this with terrorists being locked up for years without a trial or tortured or assassinated...

reply to post by Xcathdra

Thats my point.. Assange is basing his asylum argument on being sent to the US from Sweden. The US has nothing to do with his Swedish legal issues. The UK judge found the extradition request valid from Sweden so im not sure where the persecution part is coming in on that one.

He has not been charged with any crime. If they had sufficient evidence he could be charged even if he was absent... Dont forgot he walked into a police station in Sweden before he left the country and they said he was free to go. The accusations appeared very conveniently after the start of the American mega leak..

Originally posted by purplemer
Why do you think he should be charged with this. Is it not the realm of the government to keep their information classified. Once it is in the public arena you are allowed to publish it.. There are many examples of newspapers printing classified information in the past and many newspapers that printed WL material too. Should they be prosecuted also... Should sits like ATS be prosecuted. They have published classifed information.. What has happened to freedom of speech..?

Freedom of Speech doesnt protect the printing of the information, freedom of the press does and they are both in the 1st amendment. The ability to print information is not absolute. I see people constantly invoke the Pentagon papers argument to assange, trying to make assange a media outlet, or by trying to argue using the whistle blower statutes. Could ATS allow something to be poosted that could get them in trouble? Absolutely. Before they are dragged into court they will receive a cease and desist order telling them to remove the material. Which is exactly what the Government tried in the Pentagon papers as well as when Assange started releasing the info. Assange was told to cease and desist, and he refused.

Lets go one by one -
* - Whistle Blower - A person who comes across criminal wrong doing and turns that information over to a party that could do something about it. Those statutes are specific in that it only covers criminal wrong doing. Not all of the files that were sent to wikileaks contained evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Its designed to to protect an individual who reports a law violation. It does not protect a person from breaking the law by giving away hundreds of thousands of documents. At that point its not longer highlighting criminal wrongdoing. Secondly there are separate laws in place that apply to Military members.

* - Media Outlet / protections.
During the 70's (Nixon Administration) 2 reporters were given classified documents that detailed actions by the US government in southeast asia. The administration took the reporters and their paper (NYT) to court and argued the release of those documents would Embarrass the US government. The court ruled embarrassment alone is not grounds to prevent the media from reporting / publishing what is classified information.

What people ignore is the 2 reporters were charged under federal law for the release of classified information. As the trial started a procedural error on the part of the US Attorney resulted in the charges being dropped. The US attorney decided not to refile the charges (they were dimissed without prejudice).

The Supreme Court never extended any protections to the media when it comes to receiving and printing / releasing classified information. That is the part people don't know about / ignore for whatever reason.

Originally posted by purplemer
More to the point. This may well be a crime in the US. But the the information was not published in the US it was published in Sweden where this is not a crime...

Assange is in violation of US Federal law by receiving and disseminating classified information that he was not authorized to have. The other factor, and we should get details as the manning case goes forward, there are questions about wikileaks involvement in obtaining the manning files. If Assange / wikileaks assisted manning by giving him encryption software that allowed emails manning sent to bypass military filters, they are part of the criminal action via conspiracy / directly assisting in violating US law.

Originally posted by purplemer
Really I think its a smoke screen going after JA... Would it not be better to go after some of the criminals he has exposed.....

The helicopter video was reviewed and the pilots were cleared last I checked. Secondly actions occuring in a war zone dont fall unde r Roberts Rules of Order.

Manning has been charged...
Assange should be charged...

I do find the manner in which you phrased "going after criminals" interesting. I say this because Assange is doing whatever he can to avoid any type of prosecution in Sweden, up to and including breaking UK law by going to the embassy.

Is Assange above the law?

Originally posted by purplemer
Sometimes I dont get you.. No offence meant. Evidently you are intelligent and you know your stuff. You defend the Fourth Estate with hammer and tong.. Do you really think the way we are doing things is ok. Do you not think they can be done better. Would things not be better if our governments stopped lying so much. Do you really want the next century to be like the last...

Im not defending anything other than the legal system. If we start to ignore the legal system in exchange for "random truth from everyone" the system will not work.

How exactly is it holding the US government accountible when they print what Ambassadors think about the country they are in? How is it holding the US government accountible by releasing documents that show absolutely no wrong doing / criminal actions?

How does a person, who makes claims they want to hold people accountible (Assange), get the moral highground when he himself is breaking the law?

The 99.5% of the information released contains no criminal wrong doing. The remaining .5% most likely does however that .5% is buried under hundreds of thousands of documents that are irrelevent to their "cause".

If Assanges intentions were to truely hold a government accountible then they would have gone through and found the documents that would make their case. They wouldn't go out of their way to bury that info under mountains of mineutia, which is exactly what they did.

Hence why I think Assange should be charged. He has misled his followers by constnalty repeating US is evil over and over and over, constantly begging for donations that seem to go anywhere but to the cause he claims. It goes towards his salary and world travel.

Having Assange, based on his actions to date, trying to hold a government accountible would be like having the SS investigate Aucshwitz.

You dont break the law in order to call someone out for breaking the law. Its a good way, under US law, to sink any criminal prosecutions that could come but wont because the evidence was improperly obtained.

Originally posted by purplemer
He has not been charged with any crime.

Again thats my point. The US has not filed any charges against Assange yet that is the argument he is using to try and get out of going to Sweden. Secondly its the way Swedish law works and its pretty much a moot point to argue he has not been charged. Its Swedish law...

As the saying goes if your going to play stickball in Brooklynn then you better know the rules.

Originally posted by purplemer
If they had sufficient evidence he could be charged even if he was absent...

Hence the reason swedish authorities wish to interview him.

Originally posted by purplemer
Dont forgot he walked into a police station in Sweden before he left the country and they said he was free to go. The accusations appeared very conveniently after the start of the American mega leak..

A criminal investigation is at the prosecutors convienence, not the people involved. As bad as it sounds thats the way it works, like it or not.

You guys don't get it both ways... Assange is either above the law (whether its the UK, US or Sweden) or he is not. We are talking about Sweden, not Iran so im confident he will not only get a fiar trial should it go to that level in Sweden, he would be able to appeal any verdicts up to the EU court system.

Just as he has done in the UK with the extradition issue. Just as he would should he ever be charged in the US.

Again you dont get to argue Assange can stay away from Sweden because of what might occur in terms of US prosecution. We have a better extradition treaty with the UK than we do Sweden, and asking for him from the Brits would be easier than the Swedes.

There is absolutely nothing linking the claims by the 2 ladies to wikileaks and constantly trying to link the 2 is nothing but a desparate attempt to avoid the swedish issue by mixing in a US hypothetical.

Respectfully, its a cowards argument and nothing more.

Originally posted by purplemer
More to the point. This may well be a crime in the US. But the the information was not published in the US it was published in Sweden where this is not a crime...

Assange is in violation of US Federal law by receiving and disseminating classified information that he was not authorized to have.

As one point of dissent, Assange is not an American citizen; so I'm not exactly sure how American law, specifically, applies to him. This is a claim which a number of the politicians who have called for his assassination seem to have made implicitly, which their critics have noticed. Namely, that claiming that Assange, who is not an American citizen, is still chargeable under American law, is to imply that countries outside of America are still under American legal jurisdiction.

Granted, Australia a lot of the time feels like the de facto 51st state already; but if we are going to allow this, then someone is probably going to have to formalise that arrangement beforehand.

Originally posted by petrus4
As one point of dissent, Assange is not an American citizen; so I'm not exactly sure how American law, specifically, applies to him. This is a claim which a number of the politicians who have called for his assassination seem to have made implicitly, which their critics have noticed. Namely, that claiming that Assange, who is not an American citizen, is still chargeable under American law, is to imply that countries outside of America are still under American legal jurisdiction.

The Politicians have nothing to do with prosecution as that remains the perview of the US Attorney. We will see what comes out at Mannings trial. IF Assange assisted with the encryption software or dealt directly with manning while asking for other files he can be charged under US law (conspiracy charge / receiving classified info / disseminating classified info / etc).

It would be no different than a US citizen hacking into the Ministry of Defence computer system and stealing classified material and then distributing it. Just because he is a US citizen and resides in the US does not make him immune. He could be charged and extradited to face prosecution in the UK.

Originally posted by petrus4
Granted, Australia a lot of the time feels like the de facto 51st state already; but if we are going to allow this, then someone is probably going to have to formalise that arrangement beforehand.

edit on 13-7-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)

There really is not much for the Australian government can do in this case. While Assange is a citizen of Australia he is not in Australia and does not have the protection of Australian law. When a foreign national is arrested / charged in a country, their government (embassy / consulate) is notified and are given a few privileges.

Those would be knowing the charges, having basic access to the evidence / charges / etc (IE told what the info is), it allows the person in custody to have visists from a representative of their government (consular access to ensure health, well being, access to the legal system (ensure same access that citizens have).

Aside from that, thats it. The nationals government does not have a say in prosecution, charges, or punishment. The one caveat with punishment is the death penalty (a lot of nations wont extradite a person to a country where the death penalty is an option. However they have extradited to those countries if the death penalty is taken off the table and substituted with life in prison.

The other caveat allows a person who was convicted and sentenced to prison the ability to be transfered back to their home country after a certain amount of time where they will finish out the remainder of their sentence in their home country. That usually involves agreements that prevents the government from getting the national back and then releasing him.

In the case of Assange there is not much the Australian government can do and there is nothing for the Australian government to allow or disallow.

As for the 51st comment I dont really agree with it but I do understand how people could view it as such. Australia, the US, Canada, etc... Our legal systems are based off of English Common Law. Because of that its not out of the realm of possibility for the legal system in one country to uphold / fall back to a legal decision made by a court in another country.

I am not a huge fan of interconnected legal systems to such an extent but given how small the world is becoming its going to be more and more prevailent. The legal system in one country reviewing / upholding a legal decision made in a foreign country can create the view of being subordinate to that nations legal system. However perception and actuality are 2 different things.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The Politicians have nothing to do with prosecution as that remains the perview of the US Attorney.

They serve the same system. They dine at the same table. They sleep in the same bed... you get the picture

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The Politicians have nothing to do with prosecution as that remains the perview of the US Attorney.

They serve the same system. They dine at the same table. They sleep in the same bed... you get the picture

Lol riiight...

They have nothing to do with prosecution though.... While they are a part of the same government they are not part of the judicial or executive branch.

Hence the reason they can spout off all they want about the situation and one of the main reasons we have heard nothing from the judicial or executive branch.